Norway: terrorist or nutter?

[worm]

I'd love to hear what these non-psychological processes are that your doctors refer to.

[eFestivals]

Being 'physically pre-programmed' (whatever that means) to act is a psychological theory Neil.

Or alternatively, it's a physical medical fact no different to you having fingers.

It also sounds like complete bollocks said by someone with little to no understanding of modern psychological theory, but the fact remains that you're referring to psychology.

which just gets to show how much you don't know about the subject you claim to be expert in.

It's certainly the case - as I happened to hear by chance on radio 4 last week - that modern medical science and the real psychologists who work with those people believe there's a solid link between what might be termed physical developmental abnormalities and (what are currently termed) 'psychological problems'.

If you like, it's starting to look as tho some people are indeed 'born evil' - or at least, they are born with a propensity towards psychological problems from their physical form.

Everything else you're spouting isn't relevant. If you're talking about what motivates people then you're talking psychology. It doesn't matter what you conclude.

If a person has no control over their actions as is starting to look to be the case then it's naff all to do with anything to do with psychology. Psychology is not able to tackle that idea at all - it's outside of its range, being the physical.

Psychology has progressed (with its labelling of symptoms) about as far as recognising that people have a head with eyes, ears, nose and mouth on an equivalence with physical medical science. Psychology has no idea about what's on the inside - it can guess that there might be a heart and lungs inside but has no way of knowing for sure, and might believe that the heart carries the emotions of love. It's really got no further than that, it's in its very infancy, it's pre-enlightenment as I've already said.

Dismissing what those doctors have found (and real psychologist agree with) is where the irrelevances are - and they're all yours. Something can only be correctly analysed by considering all relevant aspects (which is something that psychology forever is unable to do by default, because it's impossible to identify what is relevant and what isn't), and while those doctors might eventually be found to be wrong there's nothing at this moment in time to indicate they're on the wrong path.

But I agree, it matters not a jot what I conclude, and nothing different applies to you either. We are both irrelevant to what happens to Breivik.

Edited August 31, 2011 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

I'd love to hear what these non-psychological processes are that your doctors refer to.

"My" doctors? PMSL.

You've got a few hours left to hear it for yourself - go to the iPlayer, for Radio 4, for last Wednesday afternoon between the times of about 2:30pm and 5pm (the times I was in my car to hear it). Somewhen between those times was the programme that featured what I've mentioned (as a generality, the programme was about the effects of under-nourishment in the womb, to help you find it).

Do come back and say you'll need to revise an awful lot of what you've believed of psychology to this point.

[feral chile]

To be fair neil, Culty has a point. Psychology is the study of behaviour and mental processes. So it doesn't matter if behaviour is caused by malnourishment in the womb, it's still the remit of psychology to explain this. That's what I love about psychology, it's very wide ranging because it's a bit of a magpie - it steals all the shiny bits from other academic disciplines to store in its own nest.

Also, I think the dichotomy between physical and mental is linguistic rather than actual - all behaviour is physical, in that the brain has caused the body to perform certain actions. The brain is capable of formulating beliefs, theories, expectations etc, and is fed by external stimuli, perception and emotional feedback - but it's all physical at the end of the day, surely?

We're just not clever enough to unravel it all, and because as we've previously discussed, the physical (and therefore psychological) effects on an individual are too numerous and diverse - and often too specific to that individual - for us to be able to generalise and to form all-encompassing theories and explanations as to why they've done something, never mind why people generally do stuff.

Edited August 31, 2011 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

To be fair neil, Culty has a point. Psychology is the study of behaviour and mental processes. So it doesn't matter if behaviour is caused by malnourishment in the womb, it's still the remit of psychology to explain this. That's what I love about psychology, it's very wide ranging because it's a bit of a magpie - it steals all the shiny bits from other academic disciplines to store in its own nest.

If something is physically pre-determined then it's not a mental process and so nothing to do with psychology.

I get what worm is saying, but unless he's taking the above on board - which he's not - then he's off the mark. There's more solid facts and substance behind the link between those 'development abnormalities' (that's my wording btw, I can't remember how that radio programme called it) and 'psychological problems' (same again) than there is to any aspect of psychology once you get past the very simple labelling of psychological concepts (much like a doctor saying "that person has a head, and eyes, and..." etc).

As for that stealing, that's something all 'disciplines' do as a power grab, nothing to do with the actual discipline itself. The amusing thing here is that worm buys into all of the very worst culprits of that power game yet fails to recognise anything about them doing just that. The power games are about making that discipline self-important and nothing to do with intellectual discovery - and in the end actually works against the idea of intellectual discovery, because things get so tied up in dogma used for power.

[eFestivals]

Also, I think the dichotomy between physical and mental is linguistic rather than actual - all behaviour is physical, in that the brain has caused the body to perform certain actions. The brain is capable of formulating beliefs, theories, expectations etc, and is fed by external stimuli, perception and emotional feedback - but it's all physical at the end of the day, surely?

We're just not clever enough to unravel it all, and because as we've previously discussed, the physical (and therefore psychological) effects on an individual are too numerous and diverse - and often too specific to that individual - for us to be able to generalise and to form all-encompassing theories and explanations as to why they've done something, never mind why people generally do stuff.

Yes, it's all physical at the end of the day, but psychology is the study of thought processes - and if something is physically pre-determined then thought processes are not a part of that.

There's varying definitions of psychology and some might claim that it's the study of behaviour rather than strictly just thoughts - but psychology would be somewhat daft to claim for itself a standard medical reflex reaction test as within its realm, and I can't see how pre-programmed brain functions (no different to what is demonstrated by a reflex test) is any different.

Note that I've always said "if" - the link is definitely there, but the influence that exists onto a person's thoughts and actions are unknown. The physical 'abnormality' doesn't always result in the same outcome, and psychologists take the view (based on very little!!) that there's a mental trigger - which is where things get really interesting, and psychology shows itself as a bad joke based on just guesses.

Because it's just as possible and likely that things are working the other way, that there's a "mental UN-trigger", that rather than a stimulus causing a person to step over the line from 'mentally normal' to 'mentally abnormal' that things might be working the other way, that a stimulus is required to make them act in a 'normal' manner and 'abnormal' is that person's default physical state. And it's just as possible that there's a physical trigger (or 'UN-trigger') of some kind - a bump on the head, or eating a certain food, whatever. It might be nothing to do with controllable thought processes.

Psychology doesn't have the first idea about these things in reality, but claims it does - and from nothing of any substance.

[feral chile]

If something is physically pre-determined then it's not a mental process and so nothing to do with psychology.

I get what worm is saying, but unless he's taking the above on board - which he's not - then he's off the mark. There's more solid facts and substance behind the link between those 'development abnormalities' (that's my wording btw, I can't remember how that radio programme called it) and 'psychological problems' (same again) than there is to any aspect of psychology once you get past the very simple labelling of psychological concepts (much like a doctor saying "that person has a head, and eyes, and..." etc).

As for that stealing, that's something all 'disciplines' do as a power grab, nothing to do with the actual discipline itself. The amusing thing here is that worm buys into all of the very worst culprits of that power game yet fails to recognise anything about them doing just that. The power games are about making that discipline self-important and nothing to do with intellectual discovery - and in the end actually works against the idea of intellectual discovery, because things get so tied up in dogma used for power.

Edited August 31, 2011 by feral chile

[feral chile]

Yes, it's all physical at the end of the day, but psychology is the study of thought processes - and if something is physically pre-determined then thought processes are not a part of that.

There's varying definitions of psychology and some might claim that it's the study of behaviour rather than strictly just thoughts - but psychology would be somewhat daft to claim for itself a standard medical reflex reaction test as within its realm, and I can't see how pre-programmed brain functions (no different to what is demonstrated by a reflex test) is any different.

Note that I've always said "if" - the link is definitely there, but the influence that exists onto a person's thoughts and actions are unknown. The physical 'abnormality' doesn't always result in the same outcome, and psychologists take the view (based on very little!!) that there's a mental trigger - which is where things get really interesting, and psychology shows itself as a bad joke based on just guesses.

Because it's just as possible and likely that things are working the other way, that there's a "mental UN-trigger", that rather than a stimulus causing a person to step over the line from 'mentally normal' to 'mentally abnormal' that things might be working the other way, that a stimulus is required to make them act in a 'normal' manner and 'abnormal' is that person's default physical state. And it's just as possible that there's a physical trigger (or 'UN-trigger') of some kind - a bump on the head, or eating a certain food, whatever. It might be nothing to do with controllable thought processes.

Psychology doesn't have the first idea about these things in reality, but claims it does - and from nothing of any substance.

[feral chile]

Yes, it's all physical at the end of the day, but psychology is the study of thought processes - and if something is physically pre-determined then thought processes are not a part of that.

There's varying definitions of psychology and some might claim that it's the study of behaviour rather than strictly just thoughts - but psychology would be somewhat daft to claim for itself a standard medical reflex reaction test as within its realm, and I can't see how pre-programmed brain functions (no different to what is demonstrated by a reflex test) is any different.

Note that I've always said "if" - the link is definitely there, but the influence that exists onto a person's thoughts and actions are unknown. The physical 'abnormality' doesn't always result in the same outcome, and psychologists take the view (based on very little!!) that there's a mental trigger - which is where things get really interesting, and psychology shows itself as a bad joke based on just guesses.

Because it's just as possible and likely that things are working the other way, that there's a "mental UN-trigger", that rather than a stimulus causing a person to step over the line from 'mentally normal' to 'mentally abnormal' that things might be working the other way, that a stimulus is required to make them act in a 'normal' manner and 'abnormal' is that person's default physical state. And it's just as possible that there's a physical trigger (or 'UN-trigger') of some kind - a bump on the head, or eating a certain food, whatever. It might be nothing to do with controllable thought processes.

Psychology doesn't have the first idea about these things in reality, but claims it does - and from nothing of any substance.

[eFestivals]

I'm not sure what you mean when you say psychology claims to have all the answers - it expands its knowledge base to take in new information, just like any other discipline.

yep - but also makes stuff up from a basis of nothing but an idea and claims it's right.

Just because someone has an idea for psychological theory doesn't mean that idea has any substance or meaning in reality. The idea of sociopaths, for example. It's an empty concept outside of navel-gazing.

Are you thinking of psychoanalytic theory in particular, or psychology generally?

generally. So much of it is a crock of meaningless and worthless shite that has been given credibility waaaaay over what it deserves, because otherwise psychology has to admit it has so very little of real substance to offer at this time.

I was also unsure what you meant by psychology claiming a power base.

Just look at worm's more recent postings.

I've put forwards a medical idea of a physical abnormality which has a solid link to what are currently regarded as psychological problems - and worm has said that such a thing would remain within psychology, because they still remain as something to do with 'the mind'.

While I understand why he says that (because they ARE something to do with 'the mind'), then he might as well also be saying that a deformed hand (something also physical, and only within the realm of the medical as things stand) is also 'owned' by psychology, as the idea of something being deformed is from the mind.

If it is the case that physical abnormalities are the cause of what are currently regarded as psychological problems then actually it becomes something for the medical side of things because it's something physical and not mental. It actually starts to undermine the whole basis of psychology as it stands.

In a very similar way, worm claims a huge amount for philosophy for the power it gives that different discipline, when they're better placed in other areas because of the greater relevance to those other areas. A person analyses something for (say) medicine, they don't 'take a philosophical approach' to it in any way except for how a philosopher chooses to see it. It's like saying that a modern car designer references Daimler's first car to build tomorrow's car, when all he really references are today's cars that he wants to make an incremental development from. We work from where we are, not from where someone detached from a process likes to say we are; we've moved on and the 'philosophical approach' isn't necessary.

All disciplines try to grab power in that sort of way for their own self-importance, their own self-aggrandisement, but some go far further than others, waaaay beyond their real importance to that thing. Philosophy is not today important to recognise that someone has a broken leg, tho from a strictly literal point of view philosophy says that it is (and from that literal point of view is of course correct). What a waste of breathe!

Psychology is very much supplementary to psychiatry as far as mental health issues are concerned, and supplementary to other areas, such as marketing, advertising, business, etc. where it might have an input but the focus is elsewhere.

That "the focus is elsewhere" you say is exactly the sort of thing I'm meaning about power-grabbing.

Yes, advertising manipulation-of-people techniques are literally psychology, but more realistically they're just today's advertising methods and nothing more. Advertisers have got it now, they don't need to re-invent the wheel for each advertising campaign they do, and nor do they need to get in a psychologist to progress those manipulation techniques to the next stage - it's now something for marketers and advertisers.

[worm]

Or alternatively, it's a physical medical fact no different to you having fingers.

[eFestivals]

But do you see that the concept of psychopathy is suggesting this, that a person doesn't have the 'normal' relating-to-others default physical state (maybe something lacking in the brain/emotion connections, whatever) so they have to learn how to react appropriately? It's precisely because psychopaths don't appear to have this relaating-to-others function, that it becomes an issue. I don't have a problem with the concept, who knows if there are people like that out there. I think the idea that they're all amoral reduces it down to value judgments. Because if you're psychopathic, why would that motivate you to be destructive? You could just as well be benign, as you'd be rid of fear, spite, jealousy etc.

You've mis-understood what I was getting at, tho I can't see how I can explain it any better than I've already tried doing. Perhaps try reading the whole thing again?

I fully accept that there's a concept that suggests things. The problem for psychology in the scenario I laid out there is that its got no way of knowing which way the triggers work: is someone with abnormal physical development being triggered into acting in abnormal ways, or instead being triggered into acting in normal ways?; is their default state 'normal' or abnormal' before that trigger? Psychology as operated believes it knows which of these it is - yet it has nothing to prove the one it sides with, what is the trigger or if there is a trigger at all, or what the 'normal' is that it says a person is deviating from. The fact that psychology doesn't have these answers hasn't stopped it from saying that it does.

[feral chile]

You've mis-understood what I was getting at, tho I can't see how I can explain it any better than I've already tried doing. Perhaps try reading the whole thing again?

I fully accept that there's a concept that suggests things. The problem for psychology in the scenario I laid out there is that its got no way of knowing which way the triggers work: is someone with abnormal physical development being triggered into acting in abnormal ways, or instead being triggered into acting in normal ways?; is their default state 'normal' or abnormal' before that trigger? Psychology as operated believes it knows which of these it is - yet it has nothing to prove the one it sides with, what is the trigger or if there is a trigger at all, or what the 'normal' is that it says a person is deviating from. The fact that psychology doesn't have these answers hasn't stopped it from saying that it does.

[eFestivals]

A physical medical fact relating to the psyche of the individual rather than components of the body.

Just because the psyche is abstract (in that it is marked by distinct thought-processes and motivations) does not make it any less 'fact' than a physical process or force that creates activity. Indeed, a physical force is equally as abstract. We classify abstract forces in nature of which there is no physical evidence, such as weight, mass, time etc. Why the problem with abstract factors relating to the psyche, such as the conscious and sub-conscious drives? Thought-processes have been empirically linked to outcomes, just as the forces of gravity have.

And yet if it's *JUST* physical there are no independent thought processes that can be processed - there is only the resulting action. So nothing psychological.

You reach conclusions far to quickly, without consideration of the possibilities, because you're working from dogma and not actually thinking.

Which is rather amusing in a convo about psychology. PMSL.

Indeed, a physical force is equally as abstract. We classify abstract forces in nature of which there is no physical evidence, such as weight, mass, time etc. Why the problem with abstract factors relating to the psyche, such as the conscious and sub-conscious drives? Thought-processes have been empirically linked to outcomes, just as the forces of gravity have.

I guess I did a different physics - one where there is a physical weight and mass.

(there might be a bit of a clue in the name of that discipline )

And time is only abstract from an intellectual navel-gazing point of view. As individuals we feel the passing of time no less than we can feel a weight on our foot.

Thought-processes have been empirically linked to outcomes, just as the forces of gravity have.

If a person's psychological issues are the result of their physical being and they have no control over them, then there's either no thought process or the thought processes are not linked to outcomes because the outcome is pre-determined within the physical body.

Put the dogma aside and try a bit of independent thought instead.

[feral chile]

And yet if it's *JUST* physical there are no independent thought processes that can be processed - there is only the resulting action. So nothing psychological.

You reach conclusions far to quickly, without consideration of the possibilities, because you're working from dogma and not actually thinking.

Which is rather amusing in a convo about psychology. PMSL.

I guess I did a different physics - one where there is a physical weight and mass.

(there might be a bit of a clue in the name of that discipline )

And time is only abstract from an intellectual navel-gazing point of view. As individuals we feel the passing of time no less than we can feel a weight on our foot.

If a person's psychological issues are the result of their physical being and they have no control over them, then there's either no thought process or the thought processes are not linked to outcomes because the outcome is pre-determined within the physical body.

Put the dogma aside and try a bit of independent thought instead.

[eFestivals]

the whole issue of 'normal' and 'abnormal' is fraught with problems. Do you mean normal for the individual, or normal for most of society?

what I think matters not a jot. The same applies with psychology cos it doesn't know either - but says it does, and that's my point. How can it say that something is wrong with a person's mind when it doesn't have the first idea of what a right mind actually is?

Deviation from society's norms is proof of a deviation and nothing more. It is not proof of anything else.

The way I see it, if someone acts differently, either from their usual behaviour, of from the rest of society, and this causes problems for them, or for society, then there'll be an attempt to locate the cause of the difference.

and yet lots of people are banged up on the word of psychology despite them not causing a problem for themselves or society (less so nowadays, I know, but still there). They're banged on the basis of being 'abnormal', a meaningless thing without first defining the normal which it cannot do.

That cause could be genetic, hormonal, the result of brain malfunction etc. And the trigger may be internal or external. But it all interacts.

unless there's no trigger - something that it not known either way. Yet you with your learning in psychology assumes there to be one. Why? Only baseless dogma!!

That's my point. It's not known, but a huge number of assumptions are made as tho they are known, and it gets called science.

I think the most you can say is that there are predispositions and tendencies.

Yep - but are they (in the 'psychologically ill') predispositions to being ill or predispositions to being normal? Which way around is it? Which way does a trigger work? Is there really even a trigger? If there is, how can it be correctly identified? Etc, etc.

These things are not known, but assumptions are made on the basis of only ideas of no substance and it's called science. It's a joke.

[eFestivals]

I think I get what you're saying now - that once we know the physical causes behind 'psychological' problems, we'll no longer need to look for 'psychological' explanations.

Yep, exactly that.

Well, "exactly that" when working from the idea that there are physical causes, which isn't an absolute as yet. If that does turn out to be right, then many current concepts of psychology will be proven as wrong; as things stand, that possibility of the physical only gets to further expose the only-guesswork that is much of psychology as it stands.

it'll definitely clear out a lot of the psycho-babble.

Only if the likes of worm can put down their dogma and think for themselves, and admit their HUGE errors.

And there's a HUGE psychological problem for psychology - will it admit it's been a huge f**k-up to-date, and lose a huge amount of the current power it possesses as a result? The psychology of daft unthinking humans makes me think it'll fight all the way, because as can be seen right here, some wish to cling to their current blind-faith.

I think some stuff will be left behind though - because a lot of psychology is concerned with interpersonal relations, and understanding those better is always going to be relevant.

As I've said all the way thru, it has some valid minor points - but they are minor and will always remain that way. It's impossible to trawl someone's mind and give the correct weighting to all of their experiences, and always will be.

[feral chile]

Yep, exactly that.

Well, "exactly that" when working from the idea that there are physical causes, which isn't an absolute as yet. If that does turn out to be right, then many current concepts of psychology will be proven as wrong; as things stand, that possibility of the physical only gets to further expose the only-guesswork that is much of psychology as it stands.

Only if the likes of worm can put down their dogma and think for themselves, and admit their HUGE errors.

And there's a HUGE psychological problem for psychology - will it admit it's been a huge f**k-up to-date, and lose a huge amount of the current power it possesses as a result? The psychology of daft unthinking humans makes me think it'll fight all the way, because as can be seen right here, some wish to cling to their current blind-faith.

As I've said all the way thru, it has some valid minor points - but they are minor and will always remain that way. It's impossible to trawl someone's mind and give the correct weighting to all of their experiences, and always will be.

[worm]

The problem for psychology in the scenario I laid out there is that its got no way of knowing which way the triggers work: is someone with abnormal physical development being triggered into acting in abnormal ways, or instead being triggered into acting in normal ways?; is their default state 'normal' or abnormal' before that trigger?

[worm]

And yet if it's *JUST* physical there are no independent thought processes that can be processed - there is only the resulting action. So nothing psychological.

Edited August 31, 2011 by worm

[feral chile]

Thus proving that there's no such thing as just physical. To enact something you have to invisage it. You can't kill a load of people with a gun without a psychological process. The wind can't force your hand to do so. It may influence your thought-process (highly unlikely), but it can't make you do it. Without a psychological process you wouldn't do anything. You'd most lie on the floor in a completely unresponsive mess before dying of starvation. But even if 'absent', as you put it, your sub-conscious is telling you things such as to seek food, water and shelter. Such drives are psychological. To refer to them is to speak psychologically.

You sound like a complete fruit bat with this unthinking garbage.

[worm]

To me, they're just different levels of explanation. You could analyse the physical processes (brain function or whatever) that resulted in the action, or you could analyse the thought processes.

Edited August 31, 2011 by worm

[worm]

Neil has a bizarre idea of psychology and a somewhat meta-physical notion of human activity.

[feral chile]

It's still psychology. You're still linking essential 'chemical' processes in the brain to the thought-processes that produce action.

These chemical processes are invariably linked to thought-processes, language and behaviour. The best indicator is to see it in terms of language as that's what the person uses and the best way to see the signs of a problem.

For example, the signs, symptoms and outcomes of a stroke are seen in the changes in language and behaviour that they display. We wouldn't think to assess the brain's chemical imbalance without these changes, nor would we be aware that they'd had a stroke. Even then, we have to return to thought-processes to assess the damage. We don't give a shit what goes on in our brains just as long as we can function mentally and enact our thinking physically.

[worm]

oh yeah I agree with you. Even though I believe in brain processes, what the brain does (among other things) is to produce language. Consciousness is a narrative, providing cohesion, a sense of self. maybe this could exist without language, it's difficult to tell, without being able to ask.

For me, it's internal behaviour. it's what the brain does. So it's a bit like the difference between the workings of a TV and the programmes that the TV shows - one's dependent on the other. (Not totally analogous, but you get the gist).